Why Hasn't The Washington Post Admitted That It Totally Screwed Up Its 'Free Super WiFi' Report?

from the this-is-getting-silly dept

Sometimes the press screws up. Anyone can screw up. The best thing to do is to admit that you screwed up, apologize, and make it right. At times, we've had to do that, sometimes even admitting we were just plain wrong. It happens. You apologize, you make things right, and you move on. However, for some people, that's hard, and apparently the Washington Post is included in that bunch. Earlier this week, we did a big debunking on the WaPo's incredibly misleading story about the FCC and "super WiFi." The story was on the front page of the Washington Post, suggesting (incorrectly) that there was a "new" proposal from the FCC to blanket the US in free WiFi.

The truth was that there was nothing of the sort. There was a minor step in a decade-long fight over putting some old TV spectrum to better use. It wasn't new. It wasn't anything important. And it had little to nothing to do with blanketing the US in free WiFi -- especially free WiFi supplied by the FCC (as the Post article implied, and which many people took to be true). A few others got on the debunking train as well, and one of the earlier thorough debunkings came from Ars Technica's Jon Brodkin, who pointed out that it was just bad journalism at work.

While some of the others who picked up on the original story have since admitted they were mistaken, Brodkin has a new article pointing out that the original story won't die. He was contacted to go on Current TV about it until he explained that there was no story. But the really awful part is that the Washington Post itself and reporter Cecilia Kang (who normally does good work, so this still has me baffled) still have not corrected their original piece. Instead, Kang put up a weak follow up piece that added five "things to know" about the plan. The "five things" are all accurate, but they were sort of core to the original story and weren't in there. The whole point is that the original story is incredibly misleading, and the proper thing to do was to put a giant correction notice on it, pointing out that they screwed up the original story. It was misleading to the extreme, and at points, implied things that were simply incorrect.

Yes, it's embarrassing to admit you were wrong, but it's more embarrassing to let a wrong story live on. As Brodkin notes, because the original story is still out there and uncorrected, the false story lives on in many places. He also notes that the Washington Post is standing by the story, which makes no sense:

I ended up talking to the Post reporter on the phone and e-mailing with the Post's ombudsman. The ombudsman told me that the FCC confirmed to the Post that the "free Wi-Fi" story was correct, which is odd, because I also talked to people at the FCC who said the exact opposite. Similarly, a TechCrunch reporter wrote that "my contact at the FCC told me that there was no such plan" as the one reported by the Post.

The Post reporter was genuinely nice and seemed eager to correct the record, but the execution was lacking. She followed up with a more realistic piece titled "Five things to know about 'free' public Wi-Fi." It explains some of the realities of the situation, such as the fact that the FCC won't be building any networks itself and that whatever networks are built won't necessarily be used to provide free Internet access.

The Post's follow-up story was all well and good, but the original story was never corrected or retracted. In addition to getting the front-page treatment, the initial Post story was coupled with a cringe-inducing video titled "FCC offers path to free Internet access." A host begins the spot by asking, "What if Wi-Fi didn't come from a router in your living room but instead from powerful TV antennas? And better yet, what if you didn't have to pay for it? That possibility could become a reality across the US thanks to a new proposal by the Federal Communications Commission." (Have I made it clear that the proposal is not new and never required "free access," either?)

And people wonder why folks have trouble "trusting" the press these days?

Re:

Newspapers print retractions and corrections all the time (usually in 6 pt font buried on page 5, as a rule). Major print media, however, seem to have a willful blindness regarding all things internet - a belief that if something is not on paper, it can't be real...and so the internet is just something A/V jerks have made up, like Beatle haircuts or moon landings.

Working the internet beat for WaPo must be similar to having to cover pet fashions.

Open Wireless

Even though this report will probably never happen, it's opened up some really good discussions about the possibilities. I believe it will probably end up being a local thing rather than national. My city, Pittsburgh, has 2 free hours of WiFi per day downtown and there is talk of expanding it citywide. That's certainly a start.

Because of some of the discussions that were begun by this article, I found openwireless.org, so it might even end up being an individual thing.

I've always like what Bruce Schneier has said about his open WiFi access and I am now helping in my own small way by allowing free, open guest access on my home wireless router.

It's hilarious to watch Mike, who doesn't follow any of the basic journalism rules, to complain about somebody else's journalistic skills. Always tearing down, always telling us how smart he is, always telling us how dumb everyone else and everything else is, but never discussing things positively and never building. Sad

Re:

...who doesn't follow any of the basic journalism rules...

Huh? According to Wikipedia these are the "rules" you are talking about:

...most share common elements including the principles of — truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability — as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public... [emphasis mine] Source

It's been my observation that Techdirt does these things far better than the traditional media outlets. It's one reason I come here every day.

Re:

Please stop trying to debunk this story

and let the train wreck continue. Eventually the pressure will build up on this one to the point where something explodes. It will probably be someone from within the service provider industry having a complete meltdown over how this will end the universe as we now know it due to loss of revenue.

If this allowed to run far enough, one of our congress critters will pick upon it and try to actually create some legislation. This could result in the start of a meaningful discussion on human rights and how unfettered access to information plays into that.